Wade Pate v. State, 05-16-01446-CR

On Feb. 18, 2016, Wade Pate took three cell phones from an electronics store and fled; when a sales clerk chased him, he pulled a gun and pointed it at her before getting into a car and driving off.
Pate was later arrested and indicted for aggravated robbery (first-degree felony).
At trial Pate pleaded not guilty; a jury convicted him of aggravated robbery.
During the punishment phase Pate testified and, on cross-examination, admitted to jail altercations, a marijuana possession arrest, and an accusation of another cell‑phone theft; trial counsel did not object to this testimony.
The jury sentenced Pate to five years’ confinement after the defense argued for community supervision.
On appeal Pate argued he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to object to extraneous-offense testimony introduced at punishment; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to extraneous-offense evidence at punishment	Pate: failure to object constituted deficient performance and prejudiced outcome	State: record does not show counsel was deficient; silence may reflect trial strategy and Pate cannot show prejudice	Court: Affirmed — Pate failed to overcome presumption of reasonable assistance and did not meet Strickland burden

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance of counsel two‑prong test)
Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53 (Tex. Crim. App.) (applying ineffective assistance principles in Texas)
Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App.) (burden to prove counsel ineffective by preponderance)
Strickland reiterated guidance in demonstration of strong presumption of reasonable performance, cited via Thompson and Goodspeed
Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. Crim. App.) (no ineffectiveness finding when record lacks counsel explanation)
Rylander v. State, 101 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. Crim. App.) (presume reasonable strategy absent evidence)
Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. Crim. App.) (both Strickland prongs required to prove ineffectiveness)